BEHOLD! The two newest articles on Wikipedia here and here! Whaddaya think?

I worked most of last night on the first one, and tweaked it up a bit today before creating the article. The second one, the one on Phil, took maybe an hour or two at most, in part because I used material from the first one. Did I miss anything? Any details that should be added? Did I get anything wrong?I figure the History section might benefit from some pre-April 2001 material, since that’s when I began coming here, and I had to piece together Nitcentral’s beginnings based on things I’ve been told or read here.

Some questions that some of you may be able to answer:

Did I get 1997 as the year Nitcentral debuted correct? The earliest This Week at Nicentral” page is from November 1997. I also noticed that the earliest “Ask the Chief” page is from September of that same year. So I’m guessing (unless Phil implemented those features some time after creating the site) that the site debuted in 1997, right? If anyone can confirm or correct this, and/or tell me which month the site debuted in, please do so.

Did Nitcentral always use the free Discus software? Was the design or format at all different from what it is today? I notice that the aforementioned pages do not use the message board format.

How many topics did the site begin with? Given that he published Guides on NextGen, TOS, DS9 and X-Files, I’m guessing it was no less than four, right? If he included Voyager, the Sink, and Movies, I’d imagine it’d be between 5 and 7.

Was Phil the sole moderator at first? How long before he appointed someone else? Who was the first non-Phil moderator, and for which topic?

When was the word “stupid” lifted from the censorware’s list of verboten words? I know this happened in recent years after I began coming here, but if anyone has a more exact date, please let me know.

Anyone know Phil’s date of birth?

I’ve emailed Phil, but I don’t know when he’ll respond, so if anyone wants to edit the article themselves, have at it!

you realize that you've created a new monster...

Nitpicking Wikipedia...

oh.. and what an honor to have my name appear in the screenshot.

Yeah, all blurry and tiny as it is.

Thanks for putting in a link to our disscussion about Star Trek Enterprise not being canon in my mind. NOT!

Wikipedia requires sources, Crusher. Is that a problem?

No, I was mostly kidding, sorry. LOL

BTW, how long did it take you to do all that research?

I put a link about Will Lang Jr. at Wikipedia.

if you have a scanner, you can scan phil's pic off the inside cover and upload that too.

Wikipedia NiT!
It's not what Luigi knows, but what he didn't never know...

{"Although the lawsuits did not name Farrand’s Guides as an example, and in fact, even cited the Guides used as an example of what was legal, Del Rey ceased publishing Farrand’s Guides, leaving Nitcentral as the sole ongoing outlet for the Guild." - Luigi

how does one cite something if its not listed as an example? you might want to rewrite that sentence. While I know what you're getting at, the rest of the world probably doesn't.

Although Nitcentral existed as an online newsletter in 1997, the discussion board was not created until October 1998.

Nits: Footnotes 28 and 29 point to private discussions, not to the public discussion boards.

I added a link to LICC.

Crusher: No, I was mostly kidding, sorry. LOL
Luigi Novi: Okay. Sorry I didn't pick up on it.

Crusher: BTW, how long did it take you to do all that research?
Luigi Novi: I spent most of last night (several hours) doing the article on Nicentral, Crusher, and some of today. I then did the article on Phil today, which didn't take more than an hour or two.

John A. Lang: I put a link about Will Lang Jr. at Wikipedia.
Luigi Novi: You mean the article on him? It looks nice. Did you start it? I notice it's been around for a while. I would recommend, though, that you or someone interested in that article create sections in that article, particularly an Intro, which every article needs. I'd recommend you check out the Intros of other articles, like the one I made for Phil, for example, to see the basic format.

Torque: if you have a scanner, you can scan phil's pic off the inside cover and upload that too.
Luigi Novi: Alread thought of that, but copryight issues preclude from using it as of yet. I've already emailed Phil to ask him if he or if Del Rey holds the copyright to that photo, and am awaiting his response. If it's his, I'll ask his permission to use it. If it's Del Rey, I'll have to either contact them to ask permission, or see if it qualifies under Fair Us of things like book covers.

Torque: how does one cite something if its not listed as an example?
Luigi Novi: The fact that lawyers used the Guides as an example of a media tie-in product that did not violate Paramount's copyright is mentioned. The source for that is the page linked to by the very first footnote in the article at the very top of the History section. I decided to repeat that source at the end of this passage about lawsuits, as you can see now.

Todd Pence: Although Nitcentral existed as an online newsletter in 1997, the discussion board was not created until October 1998.
Luigi Novi: Thanks! I asked three different people last night when Nitcentral began, and none of them could pin it down! I'll change that immediately.

Just one thing: When did the print newletter begin, and when did the online version begin? Was the url the same?

ScottN: Nits: Footnotes 28 and 29 point to private discussions, not to the public discussion boards
Luigi Novi: 29, yes, but not 28. 29 is a link to a board in the Sink. I don't know why that second one didn't show up as private in my research, but I've removed it. Thanks, Scott.

Thanks, Floyd. (Is this Brian Floyd?)

Ack. The above line should read "28 is a link to a board..."

I don't know if this is Wikipedia's error or not, but in the Nitcentral article, the section starting with "Site Rules" to the end of the article is listed twice. When you reach "Other Sources" there's another "Site Rules" that leads to the end of the article.

The defintion of Nitcentral is also listed twice.

And here are the Contents:

# 2 Site Rules
# 3 Organization
# 4 Topics
# 5 External Links
# 6 Other Sources
# 7 Site Rules
# 8 Organization
# 9 Topics
# 10 External Links
# 11 Other Sources

2-6 is the same as 7-11

BTW, fantastic job, Luigi.

Luigi, why was the first paragraph repeated with only one minor detail, going from "...it has expanded since its debut in 1997..." to ..."it has expanded since its debut in 1998..."

And in the History section, the fifth paragraph says: "The site has grown since its debut, as the number of general topics on the main Topics Page has expanded. Beginning with just a small number of topics, it grew to 28 topics by April 199, 63 topics by September 2001 and 86 topics as of August 2005..." You left out the year there.

The Guides were published by Dell, not Del Rey.

publishers became weary of further publishing such products
I think that should be "wary", Luigi!

Oh, and link 29 doesn't work. (I didn't check every single other link)

there's a duplication of the pictures on the nitcentral page

didn't say that

Josh M: I don't know if this is Wikipedia's error or not, but in the Nitcentral article, the section starting with "Site Rules" to the end of the article is listed twice. When you reach "Other Sources" there's another "Site Rules" that leads to the end of the article…The defintion of Nitcentral is also listed twice.
Luigi Novi: Ack! I don’t know HOW that happened. And no, I don’t think it was WP’s error; it was most likely mine. I’m guessing that when I cut and pasted the last edit I made of the material in my Word document, instead of correctly “selecting all” of the article in the Edit Window, I must’ve accidentally inserted the new edit into the old one.

Josh M: BTW, fantastic job, Luigi.
Luigi Novi: Thanks. I hope Phil likes it. He’s sick now, but he emailed me today to thank me for the articles, and to say he’ll get a chance to look at them hopefully in a couple of days when he’s better.

MarkN: You left out the year there.

Callie: I think that should be "wary", Luigi!
Luigi Novi: Got it. Thanks.

KAM: The Guides were published by Dell, not Del Rey.
Luigi Novi: Now that’s weird. The name Del Rey came up when I was researching the article, which came entirely from Nitcentral itself, some material from the Guides, and the links from Amazon.com. But checking all of them shows no signs of “Del Rey”. So where the heck did that come from??? Odd. In any case, I fixed it. Thanks.

Callie: Oh, and link 29 doesn't work. (I didn't check every single other link)
Luigi Novi: It seems that I again linked to a board on the Moderator Messages topic, which is restricted to moderators. I removed that link. Thanks.

Polls Voice: there's a duplication of the pictures on the nitcentral page
Luigi Novi: Now that’s even weirder than the text duplication, because when I clicked onto the Edit field, there was indeed duplicated text, but I couldn’t find duplicated image tags anywhere when I tried doing a search for “Image:”. Strangely enough, the two image tags at the very top of the article’s text (for the two are that supposed to be there) are the only ones there. Grasping at straws, I removed those two, just to see what the Preview would look like, and sure enough, all four images were gone. When I then reinserted those two tags, and hit “Preview” again, only the two that were supposed to be there showed up. I have no idea why this happened, but it worked.

Thanks for all the proofreading, guys. And remember, if you want, you can edit the article yourselves too!

In favor of its new matrix!! Have you any idea what you just said?!!!
Actually, I'd advise against having ppl doing that.

What happens if two ppl try to edit it at one time? would someone's additions be deleted in favor of the other edits? I'd suggest making a board here where ppl can post their edits for it and let a designated moderator do it. It's possible some of your errors are the result of multiple people editing...

Nope. Looking at the History page of both articles (Each article has it at the top) shows that the only other person who participated in the Nitcentral article was Red Floyd, and no one has yet touched the one on Phil.

Having all users/editors participate is one of the fundemental ideas of Wikipedia. If and when two people edit at the same time, the Edit page will advise you that someone has made such changed at the same time, and will advise you that yours may not show up. All you have to do is view the status of the article per the other guy's changes, and then make yours. You can cut and paste the entire article's text into a Word document, as I do, and then insert your edits into the newest version. As far as I know, however, the act of two people editing at the same time is not a significant problem at WP.

Yeah, they can post their edits here. That's one option. But participating is another. I actually was hoping that others would jump in with knowledge of Nit-C that predated my introduction to it in 2001. Either way works, though.

No,wikipedia articles aren't full of witches, just Luigi
Well, I've never edited a wikipedia article so I wasn't sure what warnings/safeguards it had.

Also, I haven't had time to read all of it, but did you mention the great Nitcentral collapse where we lost all the posts except for what people had backed up themselves?

Yes...I wrote the article on Will Lang Jr. However, I did get help from "Wikipedia-ites" in the "clean up"

The first issue of the Newsletter is dated for April 1994. The hardcopy edition of the newsletter was published intermintently for 17 issues, the final hard copy issue was on October 1998, coinciding with the start of the discus board. The weekly "This Week at Nitcentral" online newsletter had debuted a year earlier, in November of '97. All copies of both versions of the original newsletters are archived at this site under the "Continuing Communication" section.

D@mn it jim: Well, I've never edited a wikipedia article so I wasn't sure what warnings/safeguards it had.
Luigi Novi: For those of you who are interested in participating in Wikipedia, here are some really easy-to-use Wikipedia resource pages:

Wikipedia: Tutorial
Wikipedia: How to Start a New Page
Wikipedia: How to Edit a Page
Wikipedia: Use of External Links
Wikipedia: Avoiding Common Mistakes

For those of you who want to know more about Wikipedia, what it’s about, etc.:
The Wikipedia article on Wikipedia

For those of you who are skeptical of the very concept of a free and open encyclopedia that anyone can edit:
Replies to Common Objections

For you comic book freaks out there who’d like to contribute material to the various comic book-related artcles:
Wikipedia: Project Comics

D@mn it jim: Also, I haven't had time to read all of it, but did you mention the great Nitcentral collapse where we lost all the posts except for what people had backed up themselves?
Luigi Novi: No, but that is one of the things I’ve heard about, and would’ve like to include in the History section. This is why I started this board. When did it happen? How many times did it happen? Was it just once? What was affected? What wasn’t affected? Was it everything? How many boards were there at that point, and which ones? Put it in there!

John A. Lang: Yes...I wrote the article on Will Lang Jr. However, I did get help from "Wikipedia-ites" in the "clean up"
Luigi Novi: The term is Wikipedians. (Pick, pick, pick! )

Todd Pence: The first issue of the Newsletter is dated for April 1994. The hardcopy edition of the newsletter was published intermintently for 17 issues, the final hard copy issue was on October 1998, coinciding with the start of the discus board. The weekly "This Week at Nitcentral" online newsletter had debuted a year earlier, in November of '97. All copies of both versions of the original newsletters are archived at this site under the "Continuing Communication" section.
Luigi Novi: Thanks again!

maybe we can be just like star trek and change it every week.

oh, and make Torque a red shirt... he annoys me.

Was that last comment a joke?

Luigi, I posted here on 28/29 because I had no idea what you were trying to link to.

Yes, I know. I removed the two links pointed out by you and Callie that led to private pages.

which comment? the red shirted torque? or the post in general?

---

Quote:

oh, and make Torque a red shirt... he annoys me.

---

Exactly. Were you joking with Torque?

Torque, Son of Keplar is Polls Voice

Traditionally, Torque was for science related and trek stuff while Polls Voice was for political philisophical religious topics.

So naturally, any time Torque posts, it means less air time for Polls Voice.

This fact was mentioned months ago before Polls became too busy with school and disappeared for about a year or so. anyway...

Needless to say, Torque should really stop checking the site and go back to writing that 150 paper.

Say good night Torque...

Here's part of the answer on the NitCentral Collapses. There have been 2. The first occurred in April 1999 and I think only affected the ST:NextGen board. This took place shortly before I began coming here in late June, 1999.
I can't remember exactly when the second one occurred. I want to say 2001 or 2002. Not all posts were lost, though I think some entire topics were.
I don't know if it was ever determined what caused the first collapse. The second one was caused by some problem with the freeware version of Discus Phil was using at the time. He upgraded to the full commercial version and the problem hasn't re-occurred.

I would need more details in order to make it worthwhile to mention it in the text.

Torque, Son of Keplar is Polls Voice
Luigi Novi: Ah. I knew there had to be an explanation for that. And I see that you indeed mentioned that in 2002 on the evolution vs. creationism thread. Sorry 'bout that.

But I still say that the science-related side of you should apologize to the philosophical side of you.

That would require Polls Voice to admit failure which would doom his political future.

So just let that 8 bit rabbit head go back to...

I think it was the y2k bug, that crashed Nitcentral

The NextGen Crash was probably a flaw in the Discus program. Once when asking Phil about a thread link that was going to another thread Phil mentioned that the type of program Discus was that sort of thing would sometimes happen. Basically you click on the link for Thread A, but end up in Thread B instead. IIRC the link to the NextGen boards was going somewhere else & you could only get to any boards through the season & episode links on the Last Day & Last Week views. Phil & the NextGen mod of the time couldn't figure out any way to fix it and erased the NextGen topic & created a new NextGen topic. (Sadly they didn't think to make copies of the accessible boards before doing this.)

The 2000 problem was caused by NitCentral growing too fast. IIRC the program requirements were being exceeded causing lock-ups. Some topics that didn't get much traffic were deleted to free up more room, (although some popular boards got the axe as well.) There was a moderator discussion of the problem & the decision was made to try a free Discus upgrade & I believe this caused bandwidth problems with NitC's host & Phil moved to another host.

Keith, this seems like the kind of thing that I think you or someone else should write. I think one needs to have a certain command of the details of that situation to write about the account coherently, and I think you'd be qualified to do that.

If I recall correctly, the Great Collapsing NitCentral Disaster of 2000 was due to the free version of Discus not having the capacity to handle the post volume at NitCentral. Phil switched to the pay version of Discus and the problem went away.

Good job, Luigi. Could be tightened up a little bit, but overall the quality of work is impressive.

Thanks, Snick. Why don't you help tighten it up a bit? (hint, hint, hint!)

Well sorry I didnt say this earlier but figured with all the back slapping you was already getting i didnt wanna risk any ribs by adding mine...

But good job. Interesting to see the history. I wonder if it will bring more folks here and maybe get some fresh blood for the ol discussions?

And nice to see that I didnt make any of your examples of bad behavior. And I even made you screenshot (even though it was only because MJ replied ot me.)

But all in all a mice article.

But all in all a mice article.

Does that mean that Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, Jerry, Herman, Ignatz, Pixie, Dixie, Pinky, and the Brain are prominently featured? Might I presume that they are listed as the moderators?

Thanks R.

a mice article too, Luigi.

well if its pinky and the brain

I think ScottN is Brain

and Pinky is...

TomM: Don't forget Sherman, the ship's mouse from LICC!!!!

Sometimes I wonder what the encyclopedia entries would be for the member nitpickers

John A. Lang:

Obsessive Star Trek lover with an infatuation with Deana Troi. He was born... currently lives...

ScottN:

Over to the top mad scientist who gave up the stress of brain surgery to pursue his other passion of Rocket Science. Currently lives in the joint Mexico-USA owned socialist state of California.

Current projects include concealing his Yellow SUV in an abandoned Titan II missile and trying use Quantum mechanics to explain to the IRS why he doesn't have to pay taxes.

Torque...Don't forget:

Luigi Novi: The guy with the funny red headings.

His last name was changed... You see, after years of always having to go second when entering the pipe, Mario was quietly disposed of...
That's...

Luigi Novi: The guy with clever, insightful, ingenious, awe-inspiring, breathtaking, provocative, and funny red headings.

Polls Voice:

An overworked mechanical/aerospace engineering student, he has the tendency to overcomplicate situations due to his over-analysis of life's questions.

He thinks too logically sometimes and thus has trouble communicating or socializing with people who live their life impulsively.

In philosophy class, Polls Voice couldn't write a 5 page paper over one of the selected topics. It was just too hard to find any material that could fill 5 pages. So Polls Voice did the only thing he could think of, he wrote a 10 page philosophy paper on why it was impossible to write a 5 philosophy paper...

And he got an A on it.

Polls Voice also likes to argue for the sake of arguing which when combined with his overanalyzing nature is why he likes to post in the NitCentral site.

Um, is anyone here actually going to contribute to the article?

Luigi - Keith, this seems like the kind of thing that I think you or someone else should write. I think one needs to have a certain command of the details of that situation to write about the account coherently, and I think you'd be qualified to do that.
Thanks.
Although I thought my description of the NextGen Crash was too vague. I was also hoping some of the other old-timers could add to my faulty memory of how the thing was behaving at the time.

Also when I read the Wiki entry I couldn't really see where it could be stuck in easily. While interesting to some, others might see it as unnecesary info. *shrug*

In addition to the info on topics covered here will there be mention of banned topics like The Simpsons & Charmed?

I hate to say this, but I cant seem to access your links, Luigi!

is it me or other people have the same problem?

I can get to both articles just fine.

As far as the crash, if anyone could collate all the details mentioned here (along with any that they themselves might remember), it could easily go under its own subheading under History.

Banned topics could conceivably go under Site Rules. It might be noteworthy to not only mention why they were banned, but the presence of some topics that have since been added to the site that may be an indication that Phil has relaxed certain sensibilities about topics (like Family Guy, for example).

Are there any ways to track how many hits Nitcentral gets a day? a week? We could possibly put up some statistics of Nitcentral like mosts posts per day or something to add to wikipedia.

I'm sorry, but I came here after all issues. So I can't help you.
(unless you want to mention the person who kept starting threads for meaningless topics)

Once I register in wikipedia, how do I go about creating a page or editing?

MarkM, still cant access them pix of Troi!

someone helppppppppppppppp

nevermind... took me a few minutes... to find the link and read the info etc.

I *did* edit/contribute!

Yes, I mentioned you in my Monday, February 20, 2:35 pm post, Floyd.

Luigi - may be an indication that Phil has relaxed certain sensibilities about topics (like Family Guy, for example).
You're assuming Phil knows about that thread.

I think I have a copy somewhere of the reason why Phil didn't want the Simpsons discussed here.

I'm less certain of the reason for Charmed.

Well, if you can produce it, Keith, please do so.

If I recall, Charmed was the same reason why Phil didn't want a section in Movies for Practical Magic--he has a religious objection to its content.

I don't have Phil's post, but the Simpsons don't have a board because Phil thinks Bart is a bad role model for children.

It's really obvious Phil doesn't have as strong a hold on the content of the board as he used to-we certainly don't ask his permission before making whatever random topic here in the Sink.

Religious objection to Charmed? That's pretty far fetched, IMO, but hey, not my board, so not my rules.

Still, kinda like religiously objecting to Bewitched. They both have about the same to do with the religious aspects, that being virutally none at all.

its like the forbidden fruit.

Sure, there's other apple trees but you can't eat from this one.

If anyone can find those posts, let me know.

Actually AFAIK the simpsons was banned because Phil believed it was an un-nitpickable show in that clearly the creators don't care about continuity or even make fun of it on numerous occasions. I guess he felt that it would cause a certain amount arguments etc.

Maybe it's time someone asked him again for permission to do a Simpsons board and see if his attitudes have changed....

I remember the original discussions. Phil had strong feelings about its appropriateness, and as such laid down the law. Whether or not we agree with this rule, it's Phil's site, and he gets to make the rules.

I tried to summarize The Simpsons thing as succintly as possible. Feel free to correct me.

Also, can we get a specific number on the banned users? I only count three people as banned from all of NitCentral--there may be others:

Brian Webber
Peter Cuthbertson
John-Boy

Wasn't there a guy named Digger who I read was banned before I discovered Nit-C?

http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/110/16072.html?1130893126

I'm assuming the prescense of Family Guy is related to the fact that either 1) Phil doesn't know what it is, most likely because he doesn't have cable, or is like the millions of Americans who ignore the show, 2) The show is not marketed to Family time slot the same way that the Simpsons is, or 3) Phil interest in the site has declined since the late 90's, and he lacks the time to police every single subject, in the way he could back during "Eating a Jeep" and when the discussion board had about five or six topics.

What does cable have to do with it? Family Guy premiered (and returned) on FOX.

But the show gained it's popularity by reruning on Adult Swim several times a week. If all you knew was Fox, you wouldn't be interested in Family Guy. I mean, The War at Home has it's moments, but it's not that great as a lead-in.

If all you knew was Fox, you wouldn't be interested in Family Guy
Luigi Novi: Um, I became a fan of it when it was on Fox. I never watched it on AS.

We don't even get the Cartoon Network in Canada, but we do get Fox, which is, of course, where I've always watched Family Guy.

I'm a nitpicker wikipedian too. My ID is CanadaGirl. Also, if you could take a look at this post, you'll see that I need some help from you, my fellow nitpickers.
http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/110/26124.html?1127949804

Why not take some of the material about the Guides and Nitcentral from those WP articles to beef it up a bit more (albeit in edited form, since you don't want to include the same amount of detail)?

Luigi, nice articles. Since you are already registered at Wikipedia - have you thought about putting up other language versions of your articles? (If you like, I'd try to translate it for the german version. I'd have to do some research about the book editions, and then I could mail or post here. If you like.)

Thank you constanze. The only language I have any knowledge of is Italian, but my Italian isn't anywhere near fluent enough to presume to write the Italian version of it. But if you want to do the German version, yeah, go right ahead.

Just a note, constanze and Luigi. Technically, constanze didn't need to ask permission, since all Wikipedia posts are under the GNU FDL, but asking is always nice (and polite! ).

ScottN, I asked for permission since I'm not registered at Wikipedia, so I think it's easier for me to translate and have Luigi post it there, than register and post it on my own.

Yes, I know that, Scott. I was merely encouraging her.

Constanze, registering takes only seconds. I encourage you to do it. Even if you don't, you technically don't have to register; you can contribute anonymously (though my personal preference is for registered users; I don't know why WP allows unregistered contributions, since accountability is easier with registration.)

So constanze, when are we going to see that German version of the article? I checked, and it doesn't not appear to be up yet.

Btw, I recently expanded the details on my User Page, placing a bunch of articles I've created or contributed heavily to near the top, and a bunch of pieces of my artwork underneath that. You can see it here.

Nice artwork, Luigi.

And no, the brief post by red floyd back in February wasn't me. I have not been posting at Nitcentral much since LICC folded. In fact, the few posts I made in the Doctor Who area of Nitcentral recently are probably the only posts I've made outside one or two on the LICC board this year....until now, that is.

(Is it wrong that I almost yelled out a very loud `HALLELUJAH!!!' when I found out that Brian Webber had been banned?)

It's well known that red floyd is the proprietor of "red floyd's fancy french doors" in Port Mike.

Thanks, Brian.

"The second rule, though one more pertinent to the site as a whole, governs the behavior of visitors, which is referred to by visitors as the “Good Cheer” rule. [12] [13] [14] [15] Stated on the site’s main page, Nitcental is a “civil website”, on which “No fussin’, no flaming, no cussing [and] no sleaze” is tolerated."

This section under the site rules has the misspelling of the word "Nitcentral" as indicated in bold, if you want to correct it that is...

Thanks.

I'd ask for compensation of a penny for my time and effort but after the government got its 30% of it... I'm not sure it would be worth it...

For future reference, you can make corrections to those articles yourself. Who knows, maybe you'll get to keep more of that penny.

but that would require me to register, log in, figure out the syntax... bla bla bla

That seems like a lot of work when its cheaper and more fun to get others to work for you.

Actually, it doesn't require that. See my post above on March 26.

Geez, do you guys realize that Phil now has a bigger wikipedia entry than some guys who've discovered cures for diseases?

Um..........what's your point?

ATTENTION! Someone nominated the Nitcentral article for deletion. What's interesting is that the first reason they tried to give was "vanity", which seems groundless to me. If anyone would like to save it from being deleted, please chime in on the voting page, okay? And to lend credence to your vote (and prevent any accusations that I or any other person voting against deletion is just using sock puppets), please register with a username. Doing so takes mere seconds, and is free. Thanks.

Based on their reasoning, almost every Wikipedia page could be considered "vanity."

Probably the same trolls who try to delete all the webcomic entries. Wonder what took them so long?

The vanity charge could be because you're a moderator here.

How would they know that?

Luigi, if you haven't, I'd suggest you log in and copy all the WikiCode and text for those entries just in case...

Keith, I don't see how they could know that, unless they scoured Nitcentral for mention of the article.

Polls, I already have the the texts of all the articles I created (and many I contributed heavily to) on my computer. Thanks.

Remember guys, place your vote! Right 4 - 3 in favor of deletion!

Perhaps they suggested it for deletion because it has nothing to do with historical people, historical events, or something media-related (Like TV or movies) (?)

(Just a guess)

But I'm with you...Nitcentral deserves to be on Wikipedia.

Sorry, Luigi, I will try to get around to it tomorrow (I'm lazy--I've got a backload of things to get done tomorrow!).

John, Wikipedia has numerous articles on Internet sites. I don't see why Nitcentral is different.

I just added my opinion of keeping Nitcentral as a Wiki article. My name there is MarkWilliam, my first and middle name.

Wouldn't surprise me if they did Luigi. From what I hear the Deleters take pride in how many articles they are responsible for deleting.

Here's what I wrote on the forum. Hope that it's a persuasive argument:

"Keep The original rationale for deletion is invalid on both counts. Nitcentral is not a "fansite" (it is a vibrant online community with an eight-year history covering a wide diversity of topics), nor is the entry a "vanity" article (for one thing, the original creator of the site had nothing to do with composing the article). The cursory wording of the original prod shows that the individual who made the recommendation for deletion based it solely on their superficial perception of the topic, without doing any further investigation or providing more congruent reasons why the topic is non-notable. Such activity should be discouraged."

Thanks, Todd! You too, Mark and Mike.

Keith, I had no idea about that. Thanks for the info.

Whoops. I accidentally got blocked from editing because I chose an inappopriate username without reading over the username policy. So I am blocked from editing for at least a day.

You're welcome, Luigi. There's yet another deletion post and it's accusing a mod from here who's rallying nitmembers to post to avoid deletion. I'm tempted to delete all those deletion posts but then someone else could do the same with the keep ones. Anyway, whoever's responsible for wanting NC deleted and those who support it are such a-holes with nothing better to do than to be such immature little ryhmes-with-spits about something they're not even a part of. I'd like to find out if those supporters have any Wiki entries that we could find and ask to be deleted, too.

BTW, is there a time limit on how long an entry can be up for deletion before whomever's in charge does or doesn't finally do it, depending on which side has the most posts? I think the deletion thing is stupid, anyway, and this only proves why. If you can have my entry deleted then you'd better be prepared to watch me have yours deleted, too.

I just added another post.

I'm getting impression from the egos on Wikipedia that any arguments made as to "what's the harm" is not going to be as significant as making the case as to why NitCentral is "notable." I would make a stronger case in making "Keep" arguments. I'd also make a point to counter the most recent argument that dubs us a "high school clique" or that the board is "dying" (I mean multiple messages are still posted here daily. Just click on "Last Day"). I've already articulated my arguments a day ago (i.e. this site has influenced the popularity of nitpicking, similar to say how the "Jump the Shark" site encourages determining when a series has "lost it"). I really think that case speaks volumes more than asking the moderators "what doesn't harm you." If they're the moderators, fans of this site that believe it is notable and significant should make their case as to why they believe it is so.

Are you the one who posted there as "waldnorm"?

-Geez, Mike what name did you try to use?

-Mark, I don't know what the time table is. However, I don't think you should be making multiple votes. You vote once, and that's it. I don't know of any rule saying you can't argue or respond what others are saying, but I don't think you should put the word "keep" in front of your post there.

-While most or all of the voters provide some argument, I don't think doing so is necessary. At least one guy on the page just seconded what someone prior to him said. I think it simply comes down to the votes.

Right now it's 6-5 in favor of keeping it, so if anyone hasn't voted, please do so, because others may chime in there to vote to delete it.

And guys, did anyone else notice that someone there posted an anonymous post there in which they claimed that "people dont care about each other or anyone who has a problem with their special people. It is like a high school clique." The author of that post is obviously not versed in Wikipedia policy, since none of the things he complains about are criteria for deletion. And what is his basis for saying that "people don't care about each other or anyone who has a problem with their special people"?

Thanks, Luigi. I didn't know each "Keep"or "Delete" was a vote so much as just someone's opinion of whether or not that particular entry should remain or go, or did I just contradict myself there? ;) What I mean to say is that I never thought of either choice as a vote, just an opinion.

Actually, I don't think the votes count much at all. If anyone hasn't read the deletion policy, it basically says that the "votes" only indicate whether a concensus has been reached or not, or something to that effect.

Luigi, I have a suspicion who posted the highlighted text.

I love Nitcentral to death, and it is with that love that I ask: can anyone point to me Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections' "[A]chievements, impact or historical significance". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Or how it follows NOT:WEB which requires:

---

Quote:

Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
* This criterion excludes:
o Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4]
o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
* This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]
2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]
3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

---

Luigi - Keith, I had no idea about that. Thanks for the info.

Here's some places where I got my info.

2 Websnark articles
http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/10/on_the_other_ha_15.html

http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/11/however_the_ent.html

A thread about trying to save the webcomic Strange Candy's Wiki page
http://www.ponju.net/index.php?s=ae0db80154b7520a83a4adcd1da10655&showtopic=48377

A thread about trying to save the webcomic Sin's wikipage
http://www.sincomics.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=152&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

Not really related, but a rather insightful description of Wikipedia
http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70670-0.html?tw=wn_index_3

Dumped (but did not delete) a message by R that he did not nominate the article but he's the user who posted the anonymous vote in question. It included some serious namecalling and a final statement that he is leaving for good.

Also Dumped Benn's reply for a smidge of hostility. Just a smidge, Benn.

I know. I was aware of it, too. Sorry about that, Chief.

KAM: Not really related, but a rather insightful description of Wikipedia...
Luigi Novi: (Reads the page).....LOL!!!

Luigi, I used a name that incorporated Cubs third baseman Ron Santo's name. I should have read the policy, which specifically bans people from using real people's names in their username. My mistake.

Mark, I would buy that argument if there were not so many uniformly trivial entries about websites at Wikipedia. There is an entry about YTMND.com that is longer than most presidents. The fact that it is connected to a legitimate, published author should be enough for inclusion. Is the article partly a vanity piece? Sure, in a way. But that's like saying someone writing an article about their favorite TV show is a vanity piece. People write about what they are interested in.

I concur with Mike. While it is true that Nitcentral might not qualify as notable under the written guidelines, the fact is that these guidelines are rarely enforced as such and Nitcentral is similar to many, many other websites that have entries.

I think (at least I would HOPE) that determination of whether the entry was deleted would be on the merit of the arguments made on the topic as opposed to the strict quantity of votes for and against.

It's obvious that the individuals who originally proposed the deletion really don't understand what Nitcentral is and haven't taken the time to visit the site or even to read the article. This is borne out by the poster who tried to compare the site to an article for a card store (which was a blatant advertisement). But the Nitpicker's Guides are long out of print and although it is true that Phil's SWR novel has a section here, it is a huge stretch to consider the Nitcentral site as a plug for this book. I think it's like Keith posted earlier, some of the admins take pride in the number of articles they delete - which is a kind of vanity in itself, isn't it?

BTW, Wikipedia has an article about itself. Doesn't this count as a "vanity" entry?

I wouldn't worry about trying to write a refutation on R's (or whoever the anonymous poster was) post. Anyone, regardless of what side of the issue they are on, should be able to see this for what it is - the rant of an individual with a vendetta against the site.

I don't mean to ruin the fun, but if Wikipedia is full of poorly enforced rules, people with political agendas, and other pointless distasteful propaganda...

Why do you care to see that NitCentral is listed in it? Maybe Wikipedia isn't a place worthy to have the words Nitcentral in it.

MikeC: Luigi, I used a name that incorporated Cubs third baseman Ron Santo's name. I should have read the policy, which specifically bans people from using real people's names in their username. My mistake.
Luigi Novi: I wonder if that rule was created after a year ago, since the first person who chimed in on my User Page about my contributions to the Wolverine article was called Britney Spears.

Mark, I would buy that argument if there were not so many uniformly trivial entries about websites at Wikipedia...Is the article partly a vanity piece? Sure, in a way. But that's like saying someone writing an article about their favorite TV show is a vanity piece. People write about what they are interested in.
Luigi Novi: Precisely. I mean, has Slashdot won awards? Or all these sites, which have WP articles?

Polls Voice: I don't mean to ruin the fun, but if Wikipedia is full of poorly enforced rules, people with political agendas, and other pointless distasteful propaganda... Why do you care to see that NitCentral is listed in it? Maybe Wikipedia isn't a place worthy to have the words Nitcentral in it.
Luigi Novi: From what I've seen, I don't think the site rule are poorly enforce so much the sheer size of the site makes the consistency of their enforcement difficult. Hairsplitting, maybe, but I see administrators and responsible editors adjudicating its rules very often, such as those with agendas do not rule the site. I think the reason this may be (and the reason why the criticisms of the site's penchant for vandalism) is that, by way of analogy, there are more responsible citizens living on the street than there are vandals. Maybe that's just me.

Nitcentral hardly has the reach or influence of Slashdot or Digg. Heck, my grandmother has heard of Slashdot and she only has Web TV.

The argument about television programs is better. I think my problem is, is *every* website forum on the Internet notable just because it is active? Can anyone point to me what influence Nitcentral itself has had outside of our circle? How it's notable?

well, if Phil ever became less busy, and was able to release some more books, I'm sure it would become very influencial

Any idea when the Wikiadmins will decide one way or the other?

when one side ceases to respond to the other side. the side that keeps responding wins...

I commented on the page about soliticing votes here. It's very frowned upon to sign up solely for one reason, such as to edit one particular article or vote on one AFD. That said, it seemed important to let them know that Rwetruck signed up for just the one purpose as well.

If I were an admin I'd probably discount all of us.

Neither Todd Pence nor I are single-purpose Wikipedians.

And in my opinion, if you've made other edits in the past, then you're not a SP Wikipedian, and deserve to have your vote counted, even if it's to delete.

Me neither. I've posted notes on the Nazgul article, among others.

Agreed, but there are at least two people I know who posted solely to comment on the article, R and MarkN, and MikeC tried. I deliberately didn't vote because I can see both sides. Sorry.

I tried REGISTERING in order to comment, but I have made several edits in Wikipedia before; I created an entry in the TV section, helped edit the Nitcentral entry, and made several edits to an entry about my alma mater. I suppose you could consider my registration as part of single purpose Wikipediaing, but that seems splitting hairs: I had already edited and been an user at Wikipedia long before I wanted to comment on this.

I type, corrected.

I'm just very sorry that Wikipedia has become a place for people to see our dirty laundry, with R's decision to spam the AFD with his anger at Luigi.

Agreed.

I finally put something. Hopefully it puts the discussion back on topic.

Thanks, Josh.

On one of the admin pages there's a notice of a backlog on old AFD pages and that someone needs to work on it. Hopefully they will deal with the Nitcentral AFD before any more...unneccessary drama from R.

It never ceases to amaze me how petty and immature some people can be about something, like R has been there. So you're banned or kicked out or whatever, big deal. Get over it.

Looks like they got caught up and deleted the article.

ScottN: Me neither. I've posted notes on the Nazgul article, among others.
Luigi Novi: Did you vote, Scott?

MikeC: I tried REGISTERING in order to comment, but I have made several edits in Wikipedia before; I created an entry in the TV section, helped edit the Nitcentral entry...
Luigi Novi: Yeah, the Simpsons mention. I forgot about that. Sorry for not mentioning you.

Mark Morgan: Looks like they got caught up and deleted the article.
Luigi Novi: Oh well. At least Phil's article is still up.

Thanks for voting, guys.

Well, in lieu of these events, I seriously doubt I will be contributing to Wikipedia anymore. Researching and composing original articles involves a fair amount of work, and I don't see the point in giving my efforts to a submission only to have some vandal come along and propose it for deletion on completely fallacious and arbitrary grounds, as was the case with Luigi's work. I was appalled by the lack of due process and inconsistency shown in the deletion of the Nitcentral article, and realize that the same thing could just as easily happen to any effort of mine. I had been working on a couple of articles and in fact, had completed a piece on screenwriter Howard Rodman (all except for formatting) but now I'll probably just shelve all that.

I don't know if there was a lack of due process, since we were all allowed to vote, though I admit I'm curious as to who made the final decision, what authority they have, and what criteria they based that decision on.

Todd, I think we should fight such decisions that we feel are wrong, and I've been doing some checking. The main criterion used to argue for deleting the article was web notability, but that's a guideline, and not an official policy. In addition, I've checked out that link at the bottom of the Deletion Discussion page that mentions "deletion review", and found that deleted articles can be undeleted under certain circumstances. One of the circumstances listed on the Undeletion policy page reads (emphasis mine):

If the article has been wrongly deleted (i.e. that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored). A request for undeletion on these grounds may happen because someone was not aware of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AFD) or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (MFD), or because the article was deleted without being listed on AFD, or because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored.

Because of these two points, I've listed the Nitcentral article on the Deletion Review log.

I encourage all established Wikipedians here to vote on the matter.

And if nothing comes of it, then we still have the Nitcentral article on answers.com. (Though, since answers.com mirrors Wikipedia, I don't know if this means that it'll eventually get deleted there too.)

Whatever happens, Todd, I'm not going to cease my WP contributions. I've created dozens of articles, made major contributions to many more, and have minor ones to thousands. Instances like this are the exception, and do not detract from the other work I've done. I encourage the same positive attitude in you.

Mark Morgan. Can we close this thread?

Sorry, folks, my Internet was off for several days. I have deleted the offtopic posts.

Great news at wikipedia. It seems that the lowlife who nominated the Nitcentral article for deletion last summer has crawled back into the hole he came out of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_Man_In_Black

Hole? I don't know why he decided to leave, but I never got the sense that he was a "loser". He appeared to nominate the article out of good faith belief that it fit the criteria for deletion, as did those who participated who agreed with him. There's no reason to attack him simply because we were outvoted. I never really even remembered his username, and wasn't aware that he had "left".

Todd, I'm just wondering if you're suggesting that someone nomitated the article out of some sort of ill will or malice towards Nitcentral?

Having read your link I'm not entirely clear about what makes this individual a 'lowlife' or how it was totally unreasonable to nominate the article.(even if I disagreed with its nomination)

I'm always skeptical of people who claim to 'leave' a website, as there are few ways that average people can confirm that other than trusting the person in question. I recall some individuals who claimed to 'leave' Nitcentral several times and yet came back under other identities(or the same one)

Okay, maybe that was a little strong a word. Just going on what Luigi said at the time, he was one of those admins who seeks out pages to nominate for deletion just so he could enchance his standings. And the Nitcentral nomination was a textbook bad faith nomination, as it was nominated for being an advertising site, which it clearly was not.
I guess what upset me at the time was that someone's hard work had been excised at the arbitrary whim of someone else. When regular users blank a page there, it's called vandalism. When admins do it, it's called Standard Operating Procedure.

While I agree that it was not advertising (and I think that point was well made by others), there were other legitimate critieria that it arguably failed to meet, like the Search Engine criteria.

In any case, Todd, accusing him of nominating it just to increase his standing is a pretty serious charge, and in the absence of any evidence or reasoning to illustrate that that was his motive (as opposed to a sincere belief on his part that it was valid for nomination), I wouldn't make such an ad hominem accusation. We don't really know him, after all, and I certainly never interacted with him in any way that indicated that he was a jerk, or a troll, or something.

And yeah, I was sad too, but I let it go, and I'm the one who did most of the hard work, so if I can let it go, we all can. There certainly is no reason to attack the guy, especially as it's not in the spirit of either Wikipedia's Civility Rule or Assume Good Faith Rule. There are several ways and reasons that I take this tact:

-First, one of WP's guidelines is to expect to have your article edited "mercilessly" (their word, not mine). This is part of a large collaborative community, and deletion is unfortunately a consequence that one should consider as a risk when creating articles.

-Second, I've contributed to THOUSANDS of articles, and many of these are those I created, which you can see on my User Page. I'm very proud of the work I've put into these, and of those, the only one that I know of that's been deleted is the Nitcentral one. The one I created for Phil Farrand, for example, is still up. So, I'd imagine, are most of the ones you yourself created, Todd. So all in all, I don't think it's too much to be sad about, when you put it in perspective, right?

Vandalism? C'mon. Vandalism is one thing. Nominating an article for deletion is completely different. If he were abusing his power as an admin, he could simply be reported to the admin authorities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm gratified by your defense of something I put hours of work into. But it's no reason to lose one's head over it. It's no biggie in the greater scheme of things.

Hmm. Well, I must say that you're a lot more charitable than I would have been under similar circumstances. I guess I just view the situation differently than you. His initial reccomendation for the deletion included the phrase "apparent vanity site", which I thought showed that he didn't even know anything about the website and hadn't read the article. I really don't care whether or not NC has an article on wikipedia, such a thing doesn't really make a difference. But I think the idea that he was going to delete your workk on such flimsy justification must have pushed a button somewhere in me. I think the whole thing illustrates a flaw of the wikipedia system as a whole that there is no central guideline on certain policies, and that there are a whole bunch of admins running things the way they feel they ought to be run. Apparently this individual incurred the enmity of many, many people, not just myself or some of the others here. I stopped creating new articles after the incident because I didn't feel that I should spend so much time and effort in creating something that could be arbitrarily deleted.

Well, yeah, some aspects of WP grate on me, too, Todd. I think they should do away completely with anonymous edits, for example.

Todd, if you're reading this, I have something that may further illustrate why I think sticking it out at WP is important:

Go to my WP talk page, and see the most recent post that someone made at the bottom. And then go see my response to that person on their Talk Page. I think that says it for me.